4 Practicalities of an academic career
Early career instability
SHORT TERM CONTRACTS
40. Academic research funding is provided
through the dual-support system where the four UK Higher Education
Funding Councils provide core funding for infrastructure, including
permanent staff costs, and the Research Councils award grants
for specific research groups and projects.[193]
Other funding sources for research include charities and the private
sector. Following completion of a PhD, Post-Doctoral Researchers
(PDRs, also referred to as "post-docs") are usually
employed under a series of short-term contracts of one to five
years before gaining a permanent academic contract.[194]
A typical research group would be led by a Principal Investigator
(PI) and a number of post-docs and PhD students who carry out
research under the supervision of the PI. The PI, who is usually
a permanent member of staff, applies for funding for specific
projects (for example, research grants) and appoints post-docs
to work on those projects.[195]
Grant funding is usually tied to a particular PI at one institution
under whom a post-doc may be employed on a fixed term basis. Alternatively,
post-docs may obtain a research fellowship, where funds are awarded
directly to an individual to pursue their choice of independent
research, typically for up to 5 years.[196]
Because fellowship funding is attached to an individual, the researcher
(PI or post-doc) has greater choice over where to do their research.
41. The Society of Biology highlighted
that short term contracts encouraged mobility between institutions
both nationally and internationally to "expand training and
skills development".[197]
This was considered to be useful to the scientific community as
movement of post-docs fostered collaboration between research
groups on an international scale and "institutions recognise
that collaborations borne from the movement of scientists invigorate
science through discussion and the exchange of ideas".[198]
Professor Uta Frith, Russell Group, explained that "short-term
contracts are probably inevitable in a very competitive situation"
and that they encouraged innovation.[199]
She added that short term contracts were a way of ending research
projects that had originally seemed "promising" but
were not.[200] Short
term contracts are beneficial to Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs), the employers of post-docs, according to a report by our
predecessor committee, which found that:
The employing university benefits
from short-term contracts in that it employs a researcher only
for the duration of the external research grant. It need make
no predictions about its ability to attract funding for future
research for which an individual researcher is qualified. Put
simply, the university places all the risk over its future research
income onto the researcher.[201]
For a typical post-doc, the period of
employment under short term contracts occurs when they are 25-35
years old, meaning early academic careers are "relatively
unstable in what is known to be a crucial period [...] for both
men and women".[202]
This instability can make it difficult to secure a mortgage and
"inhibits continuity of employment rights".[203]
The Society of Applied Microbiology considered that "this
is discouraging for scientists who also wish to establish a stable
home and family".[204]
The STFC WiSTEM Network explained that the need to be geographically
mobile "particularly during early career, is a major obstacle
highlighted by women, especially when contrasted with the financial
rewards and stability other careers with such demands can bring
in the long term".[205]
Bournemouth University highlighted that post-docs with a partner
suffer additional difficulties; if the partner has a job outside
academia they may not be geographically mobile and the "partner's
non-academic career can often be prioritised, being more likely
to provide a permanent rather than fixed term contract and therefore
more stability".[206]
If both partners are in academia they can suffer from the "two-body"
problem where "if one member of an academic couple accepts
a job in a distant location, it can be very difficult for the
other to follow, without their career being negatively affected".[207]
While this can affect both women and men, a 2010 survey showed
that "42% of females had partners working in STEMM (compared
to 29% of males)" making it a proportionally larger issue
for women.[208] The
Open University stated that in dual academic careers, "women
are more likely to follow their male partners than the reverse"
if there is a need to relocate.[209]
Professor Dame Julia Higgins explained that "historically,
it has usually been the woman's career that has given way to the
man's career" and that although "it should not automatically
be the woman who gives in [...] it nearly always is".[210]
The situation is exacerbated by some research fellowships specifying
that a post-doc must relocate to a different university or country:
these tend to be from charity or industry funders, for example
the Marie Curie and Wellcome Trust Fellowships in life sciences
and AXA research fellowship.[211]
For post-docs considering starting a family, the lack of a permanent
position can impact on their entitlement to maternity leave.[212]
Therefore the early stages of academia are where most women are
lost in the "leaky pipeline" of science careers.[213]
42. The ScienceGrrl Campaign explained
that many male and female scientists were unhappy with the system.
For example, a male post-doc stated that he was "tired of
the nomadic lifestyle which had prevented settling down"
and added that "it's also played havoc with long-term financial
stability with regards to pensions and house buying".[214]
A female lecturer considered that had she not gained a permanent
post she would have "left academia as I had reached the point
where I could no longer deal with the uncertainty and moving around".[215]
Dr Nicola Patron, a UK academic whose partner lives in Australia,
stated that "my current contract is for two years and I expect
that at least one more national or international move will be
necessary".[216]
Dr Patron explained that short term contracts were a problem for
productivity as a significant proportion of time would be spent
on securing the next contract.[217]
In 2011, the Science is Vital Campaign produced the report Careering
Out of Control: A Crisis in the UK Science Profession? which
stated that "the constant cycling of new people through labs
on short-term contracts is detrimental to productivity as expertise
is lost and has to be constantly refreshed".[218]
Prospect stated that "there are strong concerns related to
funding for research and the short term nature of many contracts
in research, even in fields where the research is more valuable
when it is long term, such as climate science".[219]
43. Some research funders are moving
towards offering longer term grants and fellowships, for example,
Dr Leslie Thompson, Research Councils UK (RCUK), stated that "it
has been a policy of [the EPSRC[220]]
to move from less than 5 per cent of our grants being of three
years or longer in duration to a third of the grants being of
a longer duration".[221]
Dr Thompson also stated that "institutions don't always
use the flexibility they could have for managing their population
of short-term researchers as creatively as they might do".[222]
She considered that this was "because the responsibility
is, more often than not, put on the shoulders of the individual
research lecturer, not on the shoulders of the department or the
institution as the employer".[223]
The Women's Engineering Society suggested that "a clear career
path should be devised for all universities which enables a route
up the ladder without having to move from city to city or having
to take fixed term contracts".[224]
Dr Patron suggested that funding agencies should "offer
competitive long-term fellowships (2-3 years) that do not require
relocation but which do provide funding for short term travel
to other labs (1-3 months) so that collaborative networks are
still built".[225]
Other suggestions included that research councils could "provide
a greater number of long-term fellowships" or "offer
new competitive Fellowship schemes specifically aimed at academics
who have had to relocate in order to follow a partner".[226]
The University of Oxford suggested that HEIs should provide post-docs
"with a month free from lab work to write their next application;
or bridging funding of three months [or] a part-time position
to sustain their research career between external contracts".[227]
Bridging funding was also recommended by others.[228]
The Royal Academy of Engineering considered that as the Government
"has a substantial influence over university culture through
the funding provision it makes and the level of certainty of future
funding levels", an "increase in the level of future
funding certainty would help the HE sector to plan and underwrite
more longer term contracts for staff".[229]
The Cambridge Association for Women in Science and Engineering
went further and suggested that "legislation could be introduced
to limit the use of short term contracts".[230]
44. The Minister considered that "the
life of a post-doctoral researcher is pretty tough" and that
having "to move around on short-term contracts" might
"be off-putting for some women".[231]
When asked about short term contracts in research, the Minister
explained "we have always got to get a balance between short
and long term [contracts], but with things like Royal Society
fellowships, which we support financially, there are opportunities
to get work done on a much longer time scale".[232]
The Minister stated that "the Vitae career development requirements
are very good, in that they say that the PIthe organisation
employing you on the contracthas an obligation to think
about your long-term interests, advise you on what to do next
and help you on that", which he noted had "been one
of the big omissions in the past".[233]
45. Balancing the benefits of short
term contracts with the needs of Post-Doctoral Researchers was
examined by our predecessor committee in 2002. We are disappointed
at the lack of progress in the last decade. The system of short
term employment contracts for post-docs results in job insecurity
and discontinuity of employment rights that is difficult for any
researcher, but disproportionally deters women from continuing
with science careers. It also has implications for workforce productivity.
46. We are pleased that some research
funders are recognising the benefits of long term contracts to
academic careers and encourage others to follow this example.
We encourage Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to provide longer
term posts for post-docs, recognising the benefit to scientific
progress of continuing expertise.
47. We recommend that the Government
should work with the Higher Education sector to review the academic
career structure and increase the number of more stable and permanent
post-doc positions.
48. International collaboration
brings benefits to science but requiring researchers to relocate
is not the only way to promote it. We suggest that research funders
should remove from fellowship conditions any requirements for
researchers to move institute or country and instead provide funding
for shorter visits to other institutes for collaboration purposes.
We recommend that research funders work with HEIs to create funding
for permanent post-doc positions.
49. Wherever possible, HEIs should
provide three months of bridging funding for post-docs, to allow
them time to apply for new contracts.
Time away from research
50. Throughout their career a researcher's
success is measured by their track record, which means securing
grant funding for research and publishing their research as papers.[234]
Achieving funding and having a good publication record are interlinked:
a good publication record usually attracts funding.[235]
However, assessing publication records by the number and impact
of papers produced "militates against career breaks or reduced
working hours".[236]
For example, the h index, a commonly used measure, makes no allowance
for time away from research or for part time working.[237]
The Royal Academy of Engineering explained that:
This emphasis on individual output
over a specific period of time presents a fundamental difficulty
for those wishing to take a career break to change employment
patterns or working hours whilst maintaining progress to higher
grades within the university [...] [It] can affect any staff who
need to juggle research demands with childcare or other caring
responsibilities, or even those who wished to take a sabbatical
to work in industry.[238]
NON-RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
51. Women researchers may be more likely
than men to participate in non-research activities such as teaching
and outreach. The British Medical Association stated that women
"end up carrying out non-research roles [...] more often
than men, reducing the time available for their research activities".[239]
The London Mathematical Society explained that "surveys of
women mathematicians show that many women feel that they are often
asked to take on teaching and pastoral roles".[240]
Promotion in STEM careers "is assessed by criteria such as
research income and publication output, metrics that have been
recently shown to discriminate against women".[241]
Promotion criteria also "tend to under-emphasise other activities
such as student-oriented roles, including pastoral care and teaching,
and community-oriented roles such as departmental administration
or outreach work".[242]
The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that:
academic scientists spend a considerable
proportion of their time communicating (in articles, at conferences
and seminars), networking, writing grant proposals, supervising
students, managing staff, teaching andincreasinglyperforming
public outreach activities and working on the commercial exploitation
of their findings.[243]
However, such activities are not formally
recognised or rewarded in a systematic way across the HE sector.
The British Medical Association considered that such activities
which "impact adversely on research profiles and career progression,
should be acknowledged and valued".[244]
There was also a view that "the definition of excellence
used is often too narrowly focused on specific research-related
metrics".[245]
The Royal Academy of Engineering recommended that "HEIs'
promotions criteria should be examined to ensure that contributions
across management, out-reach, knowledge transfer activity, teaching
[and] research are equally and appropriately recognised".[246]
The Physiological Society suggested that there should be "greater
scrutiny to ensure that truly unbiased measures are used and supported".[247]
The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that "quantitative measures
of staff and job applicants' productivity such as number of papers
published and h-index should be replaced with a comprehensive
evaluation of the person's contribution to the organisation and
the field".[248]
For example, there should be "acknowledgement and credit
for tasks such as organisation of group seminars, engagement with
visiting school-children, mentoring junior colleagues, taking
on placement students, acting as counsellors".[249]
THE RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK
(REF)
52. The Research Excellence Framework
(REF) is the new system for assessing the quality of research
in UK higher education institutions and will be completed in 2014.[250]
The REF will be used by funding councils to assess HEIs for quality-related
funding (block grants).[251]
The REF does not measure non-research activities but is a measure
of the quality of research at an institution.[252]
Individuals are still measured by their publications and citations
but the REF compensates for researchers who have taken a career
break or are working part time (for example, fewer publications).[253]
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) manages
the REF exercise on behalf of the four UK Higher Education funding
bodies.[254] David
Sweeney, Chief Executive of HEFCE, stated that the REF now required:
only four outputs per person submitted.
If you have career gaps, we allow the number of outputs to decrease.
We have provided considerable advice to institutions on when it
is appropriate for that to happen. There are some clearly defined
circumstances that you can just apply formulaically, and for more
complex circumstances, such as caring responsibilities, we have
an equalities and diversity advisory panel that considers cases
that institutions put. We are absolutely determined that clear
gaps, whether it is from gender-related issues or industry engagement,
should not hinder those who are really good from demonstrating
their excellence.[255]
53. When asked about the measurement
of non-research activities, Mr Sweeney stated that "nationally
and internationally, [...] there is no appropriate robust measure
of the quality of teaching".[256]
In October 2013, the Minister stated that "one of the principal
aims of this Government's higher education reforms has been to
place students back at the heart of universities where they belong"
which "means strengthening the incentives to focus on teaching".[257]
He considered that:
the academic community and governments
have created very strong competitive funding for research which
drives such excellent performance across a breadth of disciplines.
However there was no matching incentive to focus on teaching [...]
the pendulum has swung too far away from teaching.[258]
The Royal Society of Chemistry suggested
that "HEFCE reviews the REF process to check for any potential,
unintended effects on the gender balance in STEM disciplines"
as "procedures that may have unintended consequences are
those that do not recognise collaborative ways of working, which
women tend to prefer, and procedures that lead to (or reflect)
particular individuals having a celebrity-like status within their
community - the majority [of] whom are currently men".[259]
Mr Sweeney confirmed that HEFCE:
will publish the equality impact
assessments that institutions have done and we will do a very
detailed analysis ourselves, possibly also with the Equality Challenge
Unit, as we did in 2009, looking at the outcome. We will see if
we have made progress since 2001, which is when I am aware that
we first did such an analysis.[260]
The Minister hoped "that the impact
measure [of the REF] will help ensure that some of the outreach
and communication activity is properly valued for the first time"
and that "we will put into the next grant letter [to HEFCE]
very clear guidance on understanding diversity challenges [...]
in its approach to the funding of universities".[261]
We appreciate that funding from research councils and the REF
must be based on scientific and research excellence and support
the continuation of this principle. We are satisfied that HECFE
takes seriously the issue of monitoring the gender impact of the
REF.
54. We recommend that HEIs and
heads of research groups should ensure that important non-research
activities are recognised in performance appraisals and promotion
boards.
MATERNITY
55. Although it varies by STEM discipline,
the "average age for appointment to lecturer grade"
is around 34 years.[262]
Dr June McCombie told us that this is "when you are eligible
for all of the allowances for maternity leave, for support when
you come back".[263]
This means that "women may have to make difficult decisions
about when to settle down and start a family" because "having
a child before a permanent appointment may mean losing a huge
amount of time in the early career stages, but waiting until a
permanent appointment may mean progressing to senior levels less
quickly".[264]
Dr Katherine Sloyan summarised the situation as "an unpleasant
choice: risk not having children or risk having to restart my
career in my mid-thirties".[265]
There is legislation to protect women: the Equality Act 2010 prevents
discrimination towards women due to pregnancy or maternity leave.[266]
However, the Institute of Physics stated that there is "anecdotal
evidence from many of our members in academia that maternity leave
is often organised ad-hoc, poorly implemented at the departmental
level and women are not properly informed of their entitlements".[267]
There are some issues "surrounding funding when women leave
on maternity and whether research can be paused or covered during
their leave".[268]
Bournemouth University explained that returning to work following
maternity leave can also be "particularly challenging"
as women must "catch up on research work after a year's absence"
without "additional administrative support or reduction in
teaching workload".[269]
Cardiff University stated that there was also pressure on women
to "come back as early as possible" in order for "individuals
to retain the same teaching duties and administrative responsibilities,
and also keep up their publication output or 'research productivity'".[270]
For post-docs on short contracts, an additional problem may be
"the contract status of women taking maternity leave: depending
on the timing of the birth of a child they may be not be eligible
for full maternity pay".[271]
To qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay a woman must be in employment
for 26 weeks before the end of the 15th week before the baby is
due.[272] Katrine Rogers
explained that as she was on a short-term contract, she was unable
to return to her previous position after maternity leave, and
was also "unable to benefit from contractual maternity pay".[273]
The Equality Challenge Unit explained that:
Maternity leave remains the main
reason for a career break, and our experience shows that many
universities enforce women in dual-career families to take responsibility
for childcare by restricting paternity leave [...] This means
that the current culture of academic science is disproportionately
harmful to women.[274]
Because the length of time required
to achieve a permanent post coincides "with the time at which
people are seeking to purchase houses and/or start a family",
many women "leave academia, or never enter it in the first
place, in favour of more stable careers".[275]
The "lack of successful female role models with families"
perpetuates the situation.[276]
The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that some "women fear that
a career in STEM cannot be reconciled with their (future) domestic
life" although for some, "an academic STEM job often
offers greater flexibility than a teaching job when it comes to
raising a family".[277]
56. The Russell Group Equality Forum
explained that "caring for family members is increasingly
becoming an issue for men as well as women" and that "this
should be recognised and men should be facilitated to play active
roles as carers for both children and elders". [278]
This would "serve to balance the responsibilities of caring
between genders and a change in attitudes towards these issues,
allowing for greater flexibility in careers".[279]
Jenny Marsden, Principal Physicist, Hull and East Yorkshire
Hospitals NHS Trust, stated that promoting "child caring
for both genders more equally, as in Sweden" was "changing
the culture, so there is not the unconscious bias in employing
women that they might go off and have children".[280]
She added that "you employ someone between the ages of 20
and 40 and, whether they are male or female, they may have a career
break".[281] It
was suggested that:
a) Research funders should be "more
flexible" and consider extensions of funding and time for
maternity leave; [282]
b) Research funders and Principal
Investigators "should be open to flexible working options",
including "enable[ing] time and support for women when they
need to start planning their next move":[283]
c) HEIs should "provide additional
support to help scientists through the difficulties of running
their research group while on maternity or paternity leave"
including "providing funding for a post-doc to support the
lab in their absence and making effective use of keeping-in-touch
(KIT) days";[284]
d) Academics returning from maternity
leave could be "offered a 6 month period, in which they are
relieved of teaching duties so that they can focus on their research
work";[285] and
e) The "learned or professional
societies could consider free/flexible membership for people on
parental leave [...] as a means of keeping up to date and in
touch with your profession while on leave and potentially reducing
the barriers to re-entry following a career break".[286]
57. Dr Thompson, RCUK, stated that:
Any research council grant will
cover any additional costs of paid maternity leave of researchers
employed on the grant and the period of the grant can be extended.
Researchers can be employed part time. Any fellowship pays maternity
leave, if that is needed, and they can be extended. They can be
held part time or they can be changed to part-time working. Studentships
allow for six months at full stipend for the six months of unpaid
extension. At the end of the day, the universities are the [employers].
We are aware, following discussions with the Russell Group, that
not everybody fully understands the flexibility that we provide
on research grants. So we have undertaken to produce new guidance
that makes sure this is absolutely crystal clear to the community.[287]
The Children and Families Bill is currently
progressing through the House of Lords.[288]
Under the provisions of that Bill, working mothers and fathers
will be able to share parental leave when a baby is born.[289]
58. There appears to be a lack of
coordination and communication between research funders and HEIs
which, exacerbated by the use of short term contracts, results
in women falling into cracks in the funding system when maternity
support is required. Research funders need to make their maternity
provisions clearer to researchers and their employers.
59. We have recommended a review
of the academic careers system which should examine how to better
support women taking maternity leave and help them integrate back
into the workplace. A move towards longer-term employment of academic
researchers should encourage maternity provisions in line with
other employment sectors.
60. We support the shared parental
leave system being proposed by the Children and Families Bill,
as shared parental leave is an important step towards creating
equality for everyone in the workplace. However, simply introducing
a new system will not in itself change workplace attitudes towards
maternity, or the difficulties caused by taking parental leave.
Academia will still need to address the real and perceived career
damage which can be caused by taking parental leave.
BALANCING CAREER WITH FAMILY
61. Women are more likely than men to
work part time.[290]
The Institute for Physics and Engineering in Medicine stated that
the main reason for flexible working is "balancing childcare
responsibilities with the demands of a career in science"
and considered that "there appears to be a dearth of opportunity
for sufficiently flexible working patterns, or real commitment
to 'family-friendly' policies".[291]
Where flexibility or part-time working does exist, "there
is a perception that career progression is more difficult, as
quantity is valued and quality alone is not enough".[292]
Under the Working Time Regulations, employers cannot normally
expect adults to work in excess of 48 hours per week, averaged
over 17 weeks.[293]
As highlighted in the previous chapter, there is a perception
that it is "impossible to work part-time in science and be
successful".[294]
There is "a long-hours culture in academia and [...] there
may be little point in working part-time in a university, particularly
if the reality is that full-time working means regularly working
60 hours per week".[295]
The Society for Applied Microbiology explained that "measurement
of success is usually by output, and what can be achieved in a
normal working week is not seen as competitive for funding or
career progression".[296]
As a result, "researchers are regularly working six or seven
days a week and clocking up hours far in excess of contractual
obligations" and "this particularly impacts women early
in their research careers when they may also be taking on additional
responsibilities within the family context".[297]
The Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) stated that there is a "frequent
requirement in STEMM for individuals to be in a specific lab or
the field at set times resulting in lack of opportunities for
genuine flexible working".[298]
The Royal Academy of Engineering explained that "local culture
within the HEI management is probably the most significant factor
in how flexible or otherwise a HE environment is in practice".[299]
The ECU highlighted the importance of defining core working hours
and stated that "women are more likely to take advantage
of [...] appropriate core hours (e.g. 10:00 - 16:00)".[300]
The ECU noted that some universities operate core hours that are
"often not fully enforced or [...] flexible" which "means
that staff can be excluded from meetings held later in the day,
for example if they need to collect children from school".[301]
An additional difficulty for primary carers is that caring responsibilities
may not be compatible with "activities that are often viewed
as essential for a successful academic career" such as "international
travel for conferences".[302]
Childcare is also "extremely expensive".[303]
62. All HEIs should review the
working hours of their academic staff and the management of research
groups to ensure that practices are in keeping with the needs
of those employees with caring responsibilities. Such matters
should not be devolved down to research groups. Line managers
who pressure staff into working unreasonably long working hours
should be held to account by their employer. In addition, every
academic researcher should have a named contact within the HEI's
human resources team to whom they can confidentially direct queries.
63. Scientific research cannot
always take place within regular working hours. However, we recommend
that research departments should determine and operate appropriate
core working hours with flexibility outside of those core hours.
This would ensure that most staff members are available for key
meetings while ensuring that those with caring responsibilities
are not disproportionately disadvantaged. Fellowships and academic
positions should be advertised with the option of working part
time unless there are insurmountable obstacles to such an arrangement.
CAREER BREAKS
64. The Daphne Jackson Trust explained
that "parental leave (incl. maternity, paternity and adoption
leave) is usually relatively short term, well planned and most
employers have good regulations in place for managing returns"
whereas "a break of more than 24 months (2 years), is often
not planned".[304]
It explained that:
women may have children and expect
to return to work following maternity leave. But many find that
having a family is coupled with relocation with a partner. This
often means a planned maternity leave extends into a longer career
break. In other instances, women may have to deal with unexpected
illness, or caring responsibilities for older relatives.[305]
A survey from the Institute of Physics
showed that women were almost three times as likely to have taken
a career break in the last five years as men (14.3% compared to
5%).[306] A research
career break "can have a severe long-term effect [compared
to] other professions" because it causes a "hiatus in
[...] publication record" and can "negatively affect
the annual performance on the grant and the ability to obtain
new research grants".[307]
Researchers may "lose their up-to-date knowledge of fast-changing
research fields" even after only "short periods away
from work".[308]
Dr Nicola Patron stated that there was a "career scar"
that "drags on from that break [...] as grants/fellowships
not applied for while on leave translate to more years without
funding and publications".[309]
She added that she would "never chance taking a career break"
as she did not think she would "ever be able to get back".[310]
65. Career breaks "require appropriate
management, to reduce impact on research and avoid the attrition
of talented individuals". [311]
The Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council explained
that this included "sufficient time planning the break",
retaining links with "'Keep in Touch' days or email updates"
and "funding for staff absence, to avoid overburdening colleagues
and to assist the returner".[312]
The Daphne Jackson Trust supports women and men wishing to return
to a research career following a break of two or more years taken
for family, caring or health reasons.[313]
Fellowships are normally two years in length and based at universities
and industrial laboratories in the UK where Fellows undertake
a challenging research project and a retraining programme.[314]
The Daphne Jackson Trust has "a 96% success rate in returning
[its] Fellows to science, engineering or technology careers".[315]
Over 90% of its Fellows are women returning to research following
a career break to bring up children and the Trust has helped more
than 220 women make a successful return to a research career since
1992.[316] Dr Gemma
Sweeney, a Daphne Jackson Fellow, stated that "without this
opportunity, it would have been highly unlikely I would have returned
to a career in science" and added that "after such a
long career break I would not be confident of applying for a position
for which I am qualified".[317]
The Trust explained that "seven out of ten [Daphne Jackson]
fellows stay in research for at least 2 years after completing
their fellowship".[318]
It also explained that:
Fellows carry out their research
within UK universities and industrial research institutions, The
Trust provides the infrastructure and expertise required to recruit,
select, and re-train fellows and administer the awards, whilst
the host institution covers overheads and consumable costs, and
salary support is provided by external sponsors such as the UK
research councils, universities, charities, learned societies
and industrial partners. Many universities both sponsor and host
fellows.[319]
66. The Trust receives 43 per cent of
its funding from the Research Councils.[320]
In November 2013 the Government announced that it would provide
"£40,000 to support the Daphne Jackson Trust to develop
a new fellowship to support people returning to professional engineering
jobs after a career break".[321]
However, the Minister clarified that this funding was "for
a study about how much more they can do on the whole question
of someone returning to science after taking a career break"
and "not specifically for a set number of fellowships".[322]
There was significant support expressed for the work of the Daphne
Jackson Trust during our inquiry.[323]
A key way to increase the participation of women in STEM careers
is to enable them to return following career breaks. We are pleased
that the Government is providing financial support to the Daphne
Jackson Trust so that it can develop a new fellowship in engineering.
We encourage more HEIs to sponsor and host Daphne Jackson Fellows.
Careers advice and support
67. Dr Patron highlighted that "very
few group leaders and PhD supervisors encourage [other] careers"
and highlighted "a paper in the United States not so long
ago which said that, even though only 30% of PhD graduates would
have a career in academia, 80% think they are going to have a
career in academia; and 95% had only been spoken to about careers
in academia, so they are not preparing themselves for other careers".[324]
Dr Jones stated that "employers out there simply do not understand
in any detail what high-performing scientists are capable of doing"
and suggested that "we need vastly improved careers advice
to help those of us who have left the academic system to find
new jobs".[325]
Jenny Marsden stated that "the workplace has changed; you
can have many careers during your working life, and that ought
to be promoted as well. Studying science is one way to access
lots of different things you could do, if it is properly sold".[326]
She added that "we ought to have better connections with
companies and people looking for top-quality science graduates
and science PhD students" and indicated that companies could
market themselves "by saying they offer good flexible working
practice".[327]
ScienceGrrl considered that "it is unrealistic to continue
telling PhD students and post-docs that an academic track is the
only successful way to use their STEM education and training"
and that:
Retaining talent is important, and
investing in a new tier of 'permanent researchers' is one approach,
but there are many successful paths in addition to academia. We
believe that it would be useful to reframe the pipeline to include
those who move to other primary and secondary STEM careers. With
this in mind, our members have told us that they would value better
early careers advice regarding awareness of these opportunities,
training in how to compete/succeed in other sectors and to find
ways to ensure qualifications and experiences accrued to date
were more formally recognised and appreciated by other sectors.[328]
Dr Jones considered that "established
academics tend to under-appreciate the deficiencies in the academic
careers system [...] they managed to obtain permanent jobs and
therefore assume that the system cannot be too bad".[329]
Others "fail to recognise that support that was given to
them that proved critical in them getting permanent positions".[330]
The Institute of Physics explained that from a survey of their
members "only 40% of all the PDRs reported that they felt
that they were respected and well regarded in their department"
and that "factors such as a lack of a comprehensive induction,
poor appraisal, lack of mentoring and lack of impartial careers
advice all contributed to this".[331]
The Society for Applied Microbiology stated that "many senior
professionals, including scientists, lack the skills and training
to be effective managers of people", a problem that "should
be addressed as a matter of great urgency".[332]
The University of Oxford considered that "within many science
disciplines, work is organised into large research groups, which
are often described as having a 'sink or swim' culture, with few
formal reporting or support mechanisms".[333]
It stated that "the evidence is that the absence of such
mechanisms is largely neutral for men, but has a significant negative
effect for women, who place a higher value on structured support".[334]
68. Mr Sweeney stated that HEFCE provided
"block-grant funding to universities, which is intended to
provide a degree of stability for universities" and that
HEFCE "expect[ed] universities to use that wisely in supporting
their staff".[335]
Mentoring, careers advice, work placements and regular feedback
"all help from the earliest stages to develop women's confidence
as a scientist".[336]
The Minister stated that "the Vitae researcher development
framework is supposed to provide a framework for career development,
aimed not just at women".[337]
He highlighted the importance of "proper access to career
advice and proper guidance [...] not simply a hire-and-fire culture
within a university or research institute".[338]
69. Careers advice is also a key element
in encouraging children into STEM careers. Pier Logistics and
Cardiff University stated that "there is strong evidence
demonstrating that the provision of quality advice/guidance enabling
students to make the right careers choices in STEM is pivotal".[339]
They added that "the kinds of professional careers advice
on offer to many of the UK's school-children is limited and fragmentary
and increasingly exported to an online (more cost-effective) interface".[340]
We have recently criticised the Government's changes to the provision
of careers advice to students.[341]
Careers advice and support for academic STEM researchers is
important for both men and women, but a lack of it can affect
women disproportionately. HEIs and learned societies should encourage
mentoring, support networks and seminars at the research group
level and monitor this practice. We note that such activities
are encouraged by the Athena SWAN charter.
70. Authoritative and impartial careers
advice on options outside academia should be available to all
undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as researchers.
Destinations of leavers
71. The discourse around women leaving
STEM careers is often based on an assumption that to leave STEM
is undesirable. However, as the Wellcome Trust highlighted, "pejorative
descriptions of the exit from academia as a 'failure' or 'loss'
from science are unhelpful" as "most of those who leave
academia following completion of a PhD continue to use their scientific
training in a way that benefits their career, their new employer
and the economy".[342]
The Cambridge Association for Women in Science and Engineering
(Cambridge AWiSE) stated that:
When women leave STEM positions,
they transition into a diversity of other positions. One category
is people-oriented positions, including teaching, public engagement,
science outreach, administration, helpline management, career
advising, child-care or house-wife positions. Another is applied
research positions, including industrial research roles, lab management,
technician positions, sales and marketing. Others move into careers
with more financial security, such as project management, patent
law, publishing, politics, accounting, political lobbying and
advising as well as scientific or management consulting.[343]
UCL stated that "women leaving
academia are drawn to various jobs and sectors" and explained
that it was "common for women to go to jobs in industry"
because they were "often more secure and better paid, especially
at junior levels".[344]
It added that "women from science also end up in professional
support roles" such as "Human Resources, teaching, positions
in the NHS, administrative roles and research support posts".[345]
Cardiff University stated that women moving into "administrative
roles within a higher education institution, into science teaching
at secondary or further education level or into roles in business
and commerce" were "likely to put their scientific training
to positive effect".[346]
Therefore "scientifically trained women who leave academia
are unlikely to be lost to productive employment and indeed are
likely to make important contributions to the educational, social,
business and economic good of the country".[347]
As the Minister put it, "one person's leakage from STEM may
be another person's irrigation of the wider community".[348]
Nevertheless, the under-representation of women in STEM academic
careers is "exacerbated by every woman who takes the decision
to leave" and "the unique contributions and perspectives
these women could bring to academic science are lost".[349]
Having fewer women attaining senior positions "perpetuates
the lack of role models for younger women studying STEM subjects"
and also "results in the culture remaining masculine so that
a 'chilly climate' for women persists".[350]
It also represents "a loss of skills and talent and a waste
of national resource in an area which is predicted to underpin
economic growth".[351]
72. Finding comprehensive data on the
destinations of women who leave STEM careers was problematic.
Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) cannot
be used to "analyse the destinations of staff leaving academia
by gender".[352]
Vitae's 2011 What Do Researchers Do? publication showed
that:
of the 2004-05 cohort [of PhD graduates],
19% were working in HE research roles three and half years after
graduation and 22% were employed in HE teaching and lecturing
roles. The other 50% were employed outside HE in other research
positions, doctoral occupations and other roles.[353]
Professor Dame Julia Higgins, Chair
of the Royal Society's Diversity Programme, stated that the Royal
Society was "trying to collect data on where people have
gone to" because:
while we talk about the leaky pipeline,
the only line that we can realistically look at is the academic
one. You can see how many undergraduates, doctorates, staff and
professors you have. You can see the loss of people. What you
don't know, and one of the things we are attempting to track,
is where they have gone to. [...] We have the HESA data, and
we are tracking [...] where people are going to in an attempt
to find out how much of it is a genuine loss and how much of it
is a change of career.[354]
73. Exit interviews and/or questionnaires
can be used by employers to determine the reasons why staff leave
or where they intend to go. When we asked Professor Uta Frith,
Russell Group, whether and how exit questionnaires were used by
HEIs, she responded that she "[did] not know of any such
efforts or attempts to do that".[355]
Professor Jane Powell, 1994 Group, explained that "there
are questionnaires that will be developed to some extent locally
as part of an exit interview procedure, which is done more or
less erratically; it is sometimes difficult to get people to sit
down for such an interview".[356]
She also outlined the difficulties of accurately determining the
reasons why staff "moved on" as it could be a combination
of reasons rather than just one.[357]
Professor Powell highlighted that "there have been new fields
added to the HESA staff record [...] which will provide more information
on reasons for leaving and destinations".[358]
This data will be available from March 2014.[359]
Mr Sweeney stated that HEFCE does not "mandate behaviour
in universities at that level, but that is the sort of good practice
that we would encourage and support".[360]
He added that "the responsible people are the employers,
the universities [and HEFCE's] core task is to get them to take
their responsibility seriously and to discharge it".[361]
The Government clarified that "there is no single body tasked
with pulling together all data on gender diversity in STEM".[362]
However it highlighted that "the Royal Society is carrying
out a study of the diversity of the STEM workforce" and "will
outline a new categorisation of the STEM workforce".[363]
The Royal Society's report "will be published early in 2014
and will help us to understand further where women, and other
under-represented groups, go when they leave STEM education or
careers".[364]
74. Identifying the reasons why staff
choose to end their employment in an organisation is crucial to
identifying and challenging where poor behaviours and practices
may exist. We are disappointed that information on the reasons
why women leave academic STEM careers is patchy and largely anecdotal.
75. Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) should routinely conduct exit interviews and/or questionnaires
with all researchers leaving their employment. Each HEI should
publish this data in a suitably anonymised form so that organisations
working to improve diversity in STEM can make use of it. Organisations
such as the WISE Campaign, Equality Challenge Unit and national
academies should advise HEIs on the best way to gather and publish
this data in a consistent manner.
193 The four funding councils are the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Higher Education Funding
Council for Wales (HEFCW), the Scottish Funding Council (SFC)
and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland. Back
194
WSC 44 [Imperial College London] para 7 Back
195
WSC 90[ STFC WiSTEM Network] para 11.13 Back
196
WSC 88 [Queens' University Belfast] para 20 Back
197
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 8 Back
198
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 2 Back
199
Q 100 Back
200
Q 100 Back
201
Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2001-02,
Short-term research contracts in science and engineering,
HC 1046, para 14; for Government response see Science and Technology
Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2002-03, Short
term research contracts in science and engineering Government
response to the committee's Eighth Report of Session 2001-02,
HC 442 Back
202
WSC 44 [Imperial College London] para 7 Back
203
WSC 65 [Sean McWhinnie, Oxford Research and Policy, and Jan Peters,
Katalytik] para 22; WSC 64 [Medical and Dental Schools Council]
para 4.3.3 Back
204
WSC 68 [Society for Applied Microbiology] Back
205
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 7.4 Back
206
WSC 96 [Bournemouth University] para 2.6 Back
207
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 3 Back
208
WSC 81 [Institute of Physics] para 18 Back
209
WSC 22 [The Open University] para 15 Back
210
Q 70 Back
211
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 11 Back
212
WSC 65 [Sean McWhinnie, Oxford Research and Policy, and Jan Peters,
Katalytik] para 22 Back
213
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 6 Back
214
WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 3 Back
215
WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 3 Back
216
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] Back
217
Q6 Dr Patron Back
218
Science is Vital Campaign, Careering out of control: a crisis
in the UK science profession, October 2011, p.12, http://scienceisvital.org.uk
Back
219
WSC 7 [Prospect] para 7 Back
220
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Back
221
Q157 Dr Thompson Back
222
Q157 Dr Thompson Back
223
Q157 Dr Thompson Back
224
WSC 38 [Women's Engineering Society] Back
225
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 18 Back
226
WSC 41 [Dr Katherine Sloyan] para 11; WSC 73 [London Mathematical
Society] para 5.8 Back
227
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 39 Back
228
For example, WSC 37 [Newcastle University Universities
and Colleges Union] para 7, WSC 19 [Cardiff University] para 12 Back
229
WSC 95 [Royal Academy of Engineering] para 23 Back
230
WSC 33 [Cambridge Association for Women in Science] para 7a Back
231
Q170 [Mr Willetts] Back
232
Q193 [Mr Willetts] Back
233
Q193 [Mr Willetts] Back
234
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 1 Back
235
WSC 66 [Physiological Society] para 9 Back
236
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 5.5 Back
237
WSC 17 [Plymouth Marine Laboratory] para 6; the h index considers
both the number of published papers and the number of citations;
for example, a researcher with an h index of 10 has written 10
papers that have received at least 10 citations each Back
238
WSC 95 [Royal Academy of Engineering] para 5 Back
239
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 19 Back
240
WSC 73 [London Mathematical Society] para 2.7 Back
241
WSC 66 [Physiological Society] para 8 Back
242
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 10 Back
243
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 5.6 Back
244
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] Back
245
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 10 Back
246
WSC 95 [Royal Academy of Engineering] para 15 Back
247
WSC 66 [Physiological Society] para 24 Back
248
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 11.9 Back
249
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 11.9 Back
250
Research Excellence Framework, Research Excellence Framework,
http://www.ref.ac.uk; The deadline for REF submissions from HEIs
was November 2013 Back
251
Research Excellence Framework, Research Excellence Framework,
http://www.ref.ac.uk Back
252
WSC 72 [Royal Society of Chemistry] para 40; Q143 Mr Sweeney Back
253
WSC 87 [HECFE] para 6 Back
254
WSC 87 [HEFCE] para 7 Back
255
Q146 Back
256
Q144 Mr Sweeney Back
257
Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Social Market Foundation, Robbins
Revisited: Bigger and Better Higher Education, October 2013,
p.56 Back
258
Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Social Market Foundation, Robbins
Revisited: Bigger and Better Higher Education, October 2013,
p.57, p.62 Back
259
WSC 74 [RSC] para 40 Back
260
Q 145 Back
261
Q 185 Mr Willetts Back
262
WSC 81 [Institute of Physics] para 11 Back
263
Q 70 [Dr June McCombie] Back
264
WSC 81 [Institute of Physics] para 11 Back
265
WSC 41 [Dr Katherine Sloyan] para 5 Back
266
Equality Act 2010, section 18 Back
267
WSC 81 [Institute of Physics] para 12 Back
268
WSC 29 [University College London] para 7 Back
269
WSC 96 [Bournemouth University] para 2.4 Back
270
WSC 19 [Cardiff University] para 7 Back
271
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 13 Back
272
GOV.UK, Maternity pay and leave: Eligibility, https://www.gov.uk/
Back
273
WSC 12 [Katrine Rogers] para 3 Back
274
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 4 Back
275
WSC 96 [Bournemouth University] para 2.8 Back
276
WSC 71 [Russell Group Equality Forum] para 3 Back
277
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 7.3 Back
278
WSC 71 [Russell Group Equality Forum] para 22 Back
279
WSC 71 [Russell Group Equality Forum] para 21 Back
280
Q13 Back
281
Q13 Jenny Marsden Back
282
WSC 55 [Newcastle University] para 4a.2 Back
283
WSC 55 [Newcastle University] para 4a.2 Back
284
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 28 Back
285
WSC 14 [University of Manchester] para 5.9 Back
286
WSC 91 [Wellcome Trust] para 21 Back
287
Q 159 Back
288
Children and Families Bill 2012-13 to 2013-14,Parliament,
www.parliament.uk Back
289
Department of Business , Innovation and Skills, Press release,
Government outlines how mums and dads can use new shared parental
leave system, 29 Nov 2013 Back
290
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 10 Back
291
WSC 15 [The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine]
para 4 Back
292
WSC 14 [University of Manchester] para 3.1 Back
293
GOV.UK, Maximum weekly working hours, https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
Back
294
WSC 66 [The Physiological Society] para 15 Back
295
WSC 81 [Institute of Physics] para 17 Back
296
WSC 68 [Society for Applied Microbiology] Back
297
WSC 68 [Society for Applied Microbiology] Back
298
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge] Unit para 5 Back
299
WSC 95 [The Royal Academy of Engineering] para 6 Back
300
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 5 Back
301
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 5 Back
302
WSC 29 [University College London] para 7 Back
303
WSC 29 [University College London] para 7 Back
304
WSC 100 [The Daphne Jackson Trust] paras 1-2 Back
305
WSC 100 [Daphne Jackson Trust] para 3 Back
306
WSC 81 [Institute of Physics] para 12 Back
307
WSC 64 [Medical and Dental School Council] para 4.4; WSC 17 [Plymouth
Marine Laboratory] para 6; WSC 97 [Russell Group of Universities]
para 2.7; Back
308
WSC 54 [Bryn Jones] para 3.3; WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para
12 Back
309
WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 16 Back
310
Q10 Dr Patron Back
311
WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para
7.5.1 Back
312
WSC 64 [Medical Schools and Dental Schools Council] para 7.5.1 Back
313
The Daphne Jackson Trust, Home, http://www.daphnejackson.org
Back
314
WSC 79 [Government] para 37 Back
315
The Daphne Jackson Trust, Support us, http://www.daphnejackson.org
Back
316
WSC 62 [Daphne Jackson Trust] Back
317
WSC 63 [Dr Gemma Sweeney] para 3 Back
318
WSC 62 [Daphne Jackson Trust] para 10 Back
319
WSC 62 [Daphne Jackson Trust] para 4 Back
320
WSC 62 [Daphne Jackson Trust] Back
321
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Press release,
Employers, educators and engineering professionals called on
to encourage more people into engineering careers, 4 Nov 2013 Back
322
Q 201 Back
323
For example WSC 65 [Sean McWhinnie, Oxford Research and Policy,
and Jan Peters, Katalytik] para 37, WSC 39 [Society for General
Microbiology] Back
324
Q 49 Back
325
Q 50 Back
326
Q 50 Back
327
Q 50 Back
328
WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 22 Back
329
WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 2.12 Back
330
WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 2.12 Back
331
WSC 81 [IOP] para 10 Back
332
WSC 68 [The Society for Applied Microbiology] Back
333
WSC 42 [The University of Oxford] para 23 Back
334
WSC 42 [The University of Oxford] para 23 Back
335
Q 156 Back
336
WSC 42 [The University of Oxford] para 23 Back
337
Q 185 Back
338
Q 185 Back
339
WSC 52 [Pier Logistics and Cardiff University] para 6.3 Back
340
WSC 52 [Pier Logistics and Cardiff University] para 6.3 Back
341
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13,
Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms
on 14-19 education, HC 665, paras 77-86 Back
342
WSC 91 [Wellcome Trust] para 15 Back
343
WSC 33 [Cambridge Association for Women in Science and Engineering]
para 5a Back
344
WSC 29 [UCL] para 8 Back
345
WSC 29 [UCL] para 8 Back
346
WSC 19 [Cardiff University] para 8 Back
347
WSC 19 [Cardiff University] para 9 Back
348
Q 177 Back
349
WSC 19 [Cardiff University] para 9 Back
350
WSC 22 [Open University] para 20 Back
351
WSC 22 [Open University] para 22 Back
352
WSC 23 [RCUK] para 18 Back
353
WSC 23 [RCUK] para 19; Vitae, What do researchers do: Career
Paths 2011, http://www.vitae.ac.uk Back
354
Q 55 Back
355
Q 124 Back
356
Q 125 Back
357
Q 125 Back
358
Q 125 Back
359
Q 125 Back
360
Q 133 Back
361
Q 135 Back
362
WSC 105 [Government supplementary] Back
363
WSC 105 [Government supplementary] Back
364
WSC 105 [Government supplementary] Back
|